Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Income Concentration Trends and Competition in the Charitable Sector: An Analysis of Jewish Charities in England and Wales

  • Published:
Contemporary Jewry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Jewish charities are a subgroup of about two thousand, five hundred organizations, accounting for 1.5% of the total number of main charities in England and Wales. The increasing total income of general charities has prompted considerable debate about the perceived concentration of income and the perceived dominance of bigger charities over smaller ones. Meanwhile, the implications of competition for charitable behavior have remained underappreciated. Building on these assumptions and aiming to test how far the results of research carried out in the charitable sector in general apply to the Jewish charitable sector in particular, the research investigates the trends in concentration of income of a sample of 1301 Jewish charities operating between 1995 and 2015, using common measures of concentration to describe the competitiveness of the Jewish charitable sector in England and Wales. The findings suggest that the sector, in line with the wider UK charitable sector, experienced high levels of growth in terms of both aggregate total income and the number of charities operating, along with decreasing levels of income concentration. These findings allow one to hypothesize that, other things being constant, the increasing numbers of entrant charities may well have increased the size distribution of charities providing the same products or services, therefore exacerbating the competition for charitable funding in the Jewish charitable sector. This, in turn, on the one hand is likely to have exacerbated the competition for donations especially among charities pursuing similar causes, reducing the total amount of charitable money devoted to particular causes. On the other hand, the increasing numbers of charities providing the same products or services and the resultant increasing competition for funding may have impacted on the costs and efforts Jewish charities were able to divert to fundraising at the expense of resources that could be devoted, instead, to service provision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Main charities” are those charities required to prepare an annual return or update to the Charity Commission, as opposed to “linked charities” (e.g. subsidiary, group or constituent charities), which, instead, do not report their financial results as they are included within those of their main reporting charity. See Charity Commission’s website, sector overview 30/6/2016 http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/SectorData/SectorOverview.aspx.

  2. Pressures due to internal structural arrangements can come about because of hardly transferrable investments (e.g. plant, equipment and specialized personnel); organizational decision makers’ information constraints on activities within the organization and environmental contingencies facing the subunits; internal political constraints such as resistance to structural reorganization (Downs 1967; Zald 1970) and finally organizational history constraints which increase resistance to change in organizations. External pressures towards inertia entail instead legal and fiscal barriers to entry and exit; environmental information constraints; external legitimacy considerations and collective rationality problems (i.e. similar adaptive courses of action for similar organizations).

  3. Charities with an income below or equal to £5,000 are not mandated to register with the CC, despite being subject to its regulation in all other respects. Such charities do not appear in any official charity register. Exception is made for CIOs, which are mandated to register whatever their income. It is worth noting that before 2007 the threshold for registration with the CC was £1,000.

  4. Tesco PLC is a British global grocery and general merchandise retailer.

  5. General charities are defined in National Account terms as “private, non-profit-making bodies serving persons.” According to the National Council for Voluntary Organizations, this includes in the “general charities” definition those registered charities that meet the following criteria: formality (institutionalized to some extent), independence (separate from the state), non-profit distributing (not returning profits generated to owners or directors), self-governance, voluntarism (involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation), and public benefit. This definition excludes registered charities that do not meet these criteria, for example sacramental religious bodies or places of worship as well as organizations like independent schools, government-controlled bodies or housing associations.

  6. The recession had a similar impact in the United States, where charitable giving declined by 6% between 2007 and 2008, but not all causes were affected equally (NCVO 2010).

  7. It is worth noticing that between 2010 and 2012, the voluntary sector held only 9% of local contracts by value and 5.6% of central contracts. Some examples are children’s homes, foster care and special education, which were run by the private sector, respectively by 67%, 46% and 34% in value over the same period (Slocock et al. 2015).

  8. During the 20th century the developments in statutory welfare reduced the Board of Guardians’ mission and in the 1990s it merged with two other Jewish charities to become Jewish Care, an organization that is the largest provider of health and social care services for the Jewish community in the UK today.

  9. This figure might overestimate the size of the sector, including both organizations not registered with the CC and with incomes equal to zero.

  10. It is worth noting that Gidron (1997), in his analysis of the Israeli non-profit, described how, in the year 1991, 12.3% of the income structure derived from contributions (grants, donations). Of those, 6.7% originated from non-Israelis (diaspora Jews).

  11. This total is slightly higher than the total originally published by ONS (263,346) due to a correction issued by ONS in February 2016. Since the correction is based on a multiplier, rounding might imply possible discrepancies in the total number of Jews in England and Wales across different publications.

  12. For an in-depth analysis of geographical changes in the UK’s Jewish population, see Graham (2013).

  13. For a detailed account of migration trends of Jews from Europe to Israel see Staetsky (2017a, b), which estimated that every year on average six hundred British Jews emigrate to Israel.

  14. This value represents the average number of children a woman would need to have to reproduce herself by bearing a daughter who survives to childbearing age. If replacement level fertility is sustained over a sufficiently long period, each generation will exactly replace itself in the absence of migration.

  15. Of those 203 charities for which detailed information was not retrievable, a total of 157 charities out of 203 (77%) had an income between £100,001-£500,000, and a total of 46 charities out of 203 (23%) had an income between £25,001 and £100,000 in 2015.

  16. This section of the register includes a trustees’ summary, which describes what the charity does as opposed to what their legal objects allow them to do. The Register of Charities in its notes for users warns that the objects set out in a charity’s governing document can sometimes be vague, general or expressed in outdated language and the way a charity takes forward its objectives may also be influenced by the resources they have available or can raise.

  17. Of those 97 excluded charities, 87, or 90%, were excluded because they did not provide charitable services in a Jewish environment or were not set up by Jews for Jews and/or the public to advance primarily the prospects of the Jewish people or the Jewish community as a whole. Among them there are charities set up to advance the Christian faith both in the UK and in Israel and charities that mentioned the word “Israel” either in their charity name, objectives or activities but had nothing to do with the Jewish faith or community. The remaining 10, or 10%, were excluded because they represented interfaith organizations that were not set up to advance primarily the prospects of the Jewish community. Nevertheless, some interfaith organizations are included.

  18. Among the biggest organizations in this group can be enumerated the Shulem B. Association Limited and The John Black Charitable Foundation. The first organization, Shulem B. Association Limited had an income of £10,997,000 in 2017–2018. Its main area of interest in the year was to establish, provide and carry on whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, a school or schools where pupils may obtain a sound education and to provide religious instruction and training therein in accordance with the doctrines and principals of traditional Judaism by providing grants to other organizations. The second organization, The John Black Charitable Foundation had an income of £16,937,000 in 2017–2018 and operated throughout England and Wales by providing grants to other organizations mainly seeking the advancement of health and the relief of sickness (e.g. prostate cancer and Parkinson’s disease).

  19. In detail 56% of the charities included in the panel provide grants to other organizations, among other activities. However, 30% only provide grants both to individuals and organizations and 1.51% only provide grants and other financial support.

  20. The United Kingdom public sector information website gives detailed information on charity types and on the different implications related to each of them: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-types-how-to-choose-a-structure.

  21. See Staetsky and Boyd (2016) for an analysis of Jewish schools in the UK. It is worth noting that in the year 2014/2015 a total of 139 Jewish schools were operating in the UK. They include 42 mainstream schools and 97 Strictly Orthodox schools. In terms of funding, 85% of the mainstream schools were state-funded, whereas among the Strictly Orthodox only 13% of schools were state-funded.

  22. Office for National Statistics (ONS) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/qna.

  23. As previously mentioned, charities with an income equal to £5,000 and below are not mandated to register with the CC. Thus, they have been excluded from the sample as they are unrepresentative of the population of the smallest charities in November 2016. However, the proportion of charities with an income equal to £5,000 and below accounted for 10.9% of the total in 1995.

  24. For more information on measures of inequality see Salverda et al. (2009). On their use in reference to income distributions see Atkinson and Bourguignon (2014).

  25. In 1995, the populations of the top 1%, top 5% and top 10% were 5, 24 and 47, while in 2015 they were 13, 65 and 130 respectively, each share increasing by 175% by 2015.

  26. Competitor analysis is performed by organizations in competitive environments in order to raise awareness of organizational vulnerabilities (sensitization), plan and implement necessary actions in order to meet competitive challenges (legitimation), compare organizational performance and behavior against objective external criteria (benchmarking), raise awareness of internal strengths and weaknesses by analyzing those of competitors, and finally obtaining new ideas for advertising and marketing campaigns (see Ghoshal and Westney 1991).

References

  • Adam, Thomas (ed.). 2004. Philanthropy, patronage, and civil society: Experiences from Germany, Great Britain, and North America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, Morris Albert. 1951. The measurement of industrial concentration. The Review of Economics and Statistics 33 (4): 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, Pete. 2010a. A strategic unity: Defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review 1 (1): 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcock, Pete. 2010b. Building the Big Society: A new policy environment for the third sector in England. Voluntary Sector Review 1 (3): 379–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldashev, Gani, and Thierry Verdier. 2007. Internationalization of NGOs and competition on markets for development donations. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).

  • Aldrich, Howard E., and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1976. Environments of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology 2 (1): 79–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey, Terry L., and Hayagreeva Rao. 1996. Organizational ecology: Past, present, and future directions. Academy of Management Journal 39 (5): 1265–1286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astley, W. Graham, and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1983. Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (2): 245–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Anthony B., and François Bourguignon (eds.). 2014. Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, Anthony B., Peter G. Backus, John Micklewright, Cathy Pharoah, and Sylke V. Schnepf. 2012. Charitable giving for overseas development: UK trends over a quarter century. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 175 (1): 167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backus, Peter, and David Clifford. 2010. Trends in the concentration of income among charities. Third Sector Research Centre Briefing Paper, 39. http://bit.ly/2uhOYg8. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Backus, Peter, and David Clifford. 2013. Are big charities becoming more dominant? Cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 176 (3): 761–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, David N., Elizabeth West, and Michael T. Hannan. 1994. A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology 100 (2): 381–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Joel C., and Water W. Powell. 1995. Cultivating an institutional ecology of organizations: Comment on Hannan, Carroll, Dundon, and Torres. American Sociological Review 60 (4): 529–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Roger. 1998. Market orientation among small to medium sized UK charitable organisations: Implications for fund-raising performance. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 6 (1): 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Roger. 2003. Competitor analysis practices of British charities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 21 (6): 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Roger. 2005. Competitive environment, market orientation and the use of relational approaches to the marketing of charity beneficiary services. Journal of Services Marketing 19 (7): 453–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betton, John, and Gregory G. Dess. 1985. The application of population ecology models to the study of organizations. Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 750–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David (ed.). 2010. Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenton, Maria. 1985. The voluntary sector in British social services. London: Longman Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brittain, Jack, and Douglas R. Wholey. 1989. Assessing organizational ecology as sociological theory: Comment on Young. American Journal of Sociology 95 (2): 439–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, Ian W. 1994. Meeting need: Successful charity marketing. Hemel Hempstead: Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, Paul. 2011. Jewish nonprofit organizations in the US: A preliminary survey. Contemporary Jewry 31 (2): 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Glenn R. 1984. Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology 10 (1): 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, Glenn R., and Michael T. Hannan. 2000. The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casale Mashiah, Donatella, and Jonathan Boyd. 2017. Synagogue membership in the United Kingdom in 2016. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk441. Accessed 4 July 2017.

  • Castaneda, Marco A., John Garen, and Jeremy Thornton. 2007. Competition, contractibility, and the market for donors to nonprofits. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 24 (1): 215–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cha, Inkyung, and William Neilson. 2001. Is competition among charities bad. A&M University, Texas. Working Paper. http://bit.ly/2vrCK34. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Charity Commission. 2003. Collaborative working and mergers: RS4, Annexes A-D, London: Charity Commission. www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/rs4annexs.as Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Clifford, David, and Peter Backus. 2010. Are big charities becoming increasingly dominant? Tracking charitable income growth 1997–2008 by initial size. Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) Working Paper, 38. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/generic/tsrc/documents/tsrc/working-papers/working-paper-38.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Cohen, Steven Martin. 1980. Trends in Jewish philanthropy. In The American jewish year book, vol. 80, 29–51. New York: The American Jewish Committee.

  • Curry, Bruce, and Kenneth D. George. 1983. Industrial concentration: A survey. The Journal of Industrial Economics 31 (3): 203–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, Siobhan. 2011. Philanthropy, the Big Society and emerging philanthropic relationships in the UK. Public Management Review 13 (8): 1077–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Anthony, and Rand Corporation. 1967. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elazar, Daniel J. 2002. Organizational and philanthropic behavior of the North American Jewish community. Contemporary Jewry 23 (1): 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elazar, Daniel Judah. 1995. Community and polity: The organizational dynamics of American Jewry. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Eric, Chris, Hatton, Janet, Robertson, Hazel, Roberts, Susannah, Baines, Felicity, Evison and Gyles Glover. 2012. People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011: Services & Supports. Learning Disability Observatory. http://boltonshealthmatters.org/sites/default/files/IHAL2012-04PWLD2011.pdf. Accessed on 31 Oct 2017.

  • Evers, Adalbert, and Jean-Louis Laville (eds.). 2004. The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, Susan. 1987. Competition and performance in the nonprofit sector: The case of US medical research charities. The Journal of Industrial Economics 35 (3): 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, David. 2011. Jews in the East End, Jews in the polity. ‘The Jew’ in the text. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century 13 (19): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, John, and Jane Gibbon. 2017. The rise and fall of the Big Society in the UK. Public Money & Management 37 (2): 126–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, Lee K. 1903. Jewish Charities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 21 (3): 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gause, G. F. 1934. The struggle for existence. Nature: 227-89. In Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5): 929–964.

  • George, Victor, and Paul Wilding. 1994. Welfare and ideology. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, Sumantra, and D. Eleanor Westney. 1991. Organizing competitor analysis systems. Strategic Management Journal 12 (1): 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gidron, Benjamin. 1997. The evolution of Israel’s third sector: The role of predominant ideology. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 8 (1): 11–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godley, Andrew. 1996. Jewish soft loan societies in New York and London and immigrant entrepreneurship, 1880–1914. Business History 38 (3): 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Jacqueline, and Barry Kosmin. 1998. Patterns of charitable giving among British Jews. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk133. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Graham, David, and Jonathan Boyd. 2016. Charitable giving among Britain’s Jews: Looking to the future. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://bit.ly/2vr7D7s. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Graham, David, Daniel L. Staetsky and Jonathan, Boyd. 2014. Jews in the United Kingdom in 2013: Preliminary findings from the national Jewish community survey. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk162. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.

  • Graham, David. 2013. 2011 Census results. Thinning and thickening: Geographical change in the UK’s Jewish population, 2001–2011. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://www.jpr.org.uk/content/view.cfm/documents/Thinning_and_Thickening.Final1.pdf. Accessed on 30 Oct 2017.

  • Graham, David. 2015. Health and disability in Britain’s Jewish population: Details from the 2011 Census. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk199. Accessed on 31 Oct 2017.

  • Green, Chris (2014). There are too many charities doing the same work. The Independent. http://ind.pn/2uGA7wF. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Halfpenny, Peter, and D. Scott. 1996. Future developments in funding for the voluntary sector. In Meeting the challenge of change: Voluntary action into the 21st century. Report of the Commission on the future of the voluntary sector. London: Commission Secretariat/NCVO.

  • Halfpenny, Peter, and Margaret Reid. 2000. The financial resources of the UK Jewish voluntary sector. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk139. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 929–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, Michael T., and Freeman John. 1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Margaret. 1996. An inner group of willing people: Volunteering in a religious context. Social Policy & Administration 30 (1): 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Margaret. 1997. The Jewish voluntary sector in the United Kingdom. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk129. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Harris, Margaret. 2012. Nonprofits and business: Toward a subfield of nonprofit studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41 (5): 892–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Margaret, and Colin Rochester. 2001. Governance in the Jewish voluntary sector. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk140. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Harris, Margaret, and Colin Rochester. 2003. A social policy role for faith-based organizations? Lessons from the UK Jewish voluntary sector. Journal of Social Policy 32 (1): 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbert, Sally Ann. 1995. The market positioning of British medical charities. European Journal of Marketing 29 (10): 6–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G. Evelyn. 1957. Cold Spring Harbor symposium on quantitative biology. Concluding Remarks, 22: 415–427. In Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82(5): 929–964.

  • Katz, Jerome, and William B. Gartner. 1988. Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 429–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, Jeremy. 2003. The voluntary sector: Comparative perspectives in the UK. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, Jeremy, and Martin R.J. Knap. 1996. The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettell, Steven. 2012. Thematic review: Religion and the Big Society: A match made in heaven? Steven Kettell. Policy & Politics 40 (2): 281–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmin, Barry Alexander, and Paul Ritterband (eds.). 1991. Contemporary Jewish philanthropy in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambie-Mumford, Hannah, and David Jarvis. 2012. The role of faith-based organizations in the Big Society: Opportunities and challenges. Policy Studies 33 (3): 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, Michael, and Richard Goldstein. 2013. Jews in Britain. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Susan J., and Sindey Dranoff. 2016. Jewish community studies as seen through a business lens. Contemporary Jewry 36 (3): 381–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levins, Richard. 1964. The theory of fitness in a heterogeneous environment. IV. The adaptive significance of gene flow. Evolution 18 (4): 635–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, Vivian. 1959. A century of social service, 1859–1959: The Jewish Board of Guardians. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi, Alessandro. 1995. The population ecology of organizational founding: Location dependence and unobserved heterogeneity. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (1): 111–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manville, Graham, and Richard Greatbanks. 2013. Anecdotal performance reporting: Can it provide sufficient confidence for third sector funding bodies? In Third sector performance, ed. Graham Manville and Richard Greatbanks. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbourne, Linda. 2013. Voluntary sector in transition. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Stephen, Marlena Schmool, and Antony Lerman. 1996. Social and political attitudes of British Jews. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk128. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • National Council of Voluntary Organizations (NCVO). 2010. The impact of the recession on charitable giving in the UK. UK Giving Report 2009. NCVO/CAF. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/ukgivingreport2009.pdf?sfvrsn=3c15f440_4. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Nichols, Judith E. 1997. Fundraising in the USA and the United Kingdom: Comparing today with directions for tomorrow. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2 (2): 148–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onyx, Jerry. 2007. Non-profit organizations. In International encyclopedia of organization studies, ed. Clegg Stewart and James R. Bailey. Sage Publications.

  • Peltzman, Sam. 1977. The gains and losses from industrial concentration. The Journal of Law and Economics 20 (2): 229–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, Charles. 1972. Complex organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, Charles. 1986. Economic theories of organization. Theory and Society 15 (1): 11–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pharoah, Cathy, Richard, Jenkins, Keiran, Goddard, Catherine, Walker. 2016. Giving trends. Top 300 foundation grant-makers 2016 report. London: Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF). http://www.acf.org.uk/downloads/publications/ACF123_Foundation_Giving_Trends_2016_Design_AW_Web_pgs.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Pyne, Anthony E., and Deenagh Robertson. 1997. Charities marketing—More focus on the beneficiary. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 2 (2): 154–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, Oliver, David Kane, Belinda Pratten, and Karl Wilding. 2008. The UK Civil Society Almanac 2008. London: NCVO. https://data.ncvo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NCVO-Almanac-Final.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Rocker, Simon (2017). No big lift for charity donations in 2016. The Jewish Chronicle, p 4. https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/no-big-lift-for-charity-donations-in-2016-1.433244. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

  • Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1982. Charitable giving and “excessive” fundraising. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 97 (2): 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1990. Competition between non-profits and for-profits: Entry and growth. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 1 (1): 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, Mordechai. 1999. The rich and the poor: Jewish philanthropy and social control in nineteenth century London. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, Lester M., and S. Wojciech Sokolowski. 2016. Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (4): 1515–1545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salverda, Wiemer, Brian Nolan, and Timothy M. Smeeding (eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of economic inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., and R. Bennett. 2004. The nonprofit marketing landscape: A brief review of developments in the field. Journal of Business Research 58 (6): 797–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, Ernest. 2000. Grant-making trusts in the Jewish sector. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk138. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Scott, W. Richard. 1987. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (4): 493–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaul Bar Nissim, Hanna. 2017. The adaptation process of Jewish Philanthropies to changing environments: The case of the UJA-Federation of New York since 1990. Contemporary Jewry 2017: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A., and Charles Bonini. 1958. The size distribution of business firms. The American Economic Review 48 (4): 607–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Jitendra V., and Charles J. Lumsden. 1990. Theory and research in organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology 16 (1): 161–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocock, Caroline, R. Hayes, and D. Harker. 2015. Whose Society? The Final Big Society Audit.” DHA Communication and Civil Exchange. http://www.civilexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Whose-Society_The-Final-Big-Society-Audit_final.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.

  • Sperber, Haim. 2012. Philanthropy and social control in the Anglo-Jewish community during the mid-nineteenth century (1850–1880). Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 11 (1): 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staetsky, L. Daniel. 2017a. Learning disabilities: Understanding their prevalence in the British Jewish community. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk430. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.

  • Staetsky, L. Daniel. 2017b. Are Jews Leaving Europe? London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-eur137. Accessed on 30 Oct 2017.

  • Staetsky, L. Daniel, and Jonathan Boyd. 2015. Strictly Orthodox rising: What the demography of British Jews tells us about the future of the community. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk285. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.

  • Staetsky, L. Daniel, and Jonathan Boyd. 2016. The rise and rise of Jewish schools in the United Kingdom: Numbers, trends and policy issues. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=3334. Accessed 15 Oct 2017.

  • Staetsky, L., Daniel, David, Clifford, Jonathan Boyd, and Ernst Schlesinger 2012. Overview of the financial history of Jewish charities in England and Wales 1995-2011. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Unpublished.

  • Strom, Stephanie (2007). Charities trying mergers to improve bottom line. The New York Times. http://www.ecf.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2000/10/2007-11-2007-NY-Times-Charities-Trying-Mergers.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

  • Tenenbaum, Shelly. 1989. Culture and context: The emergence of Hebrew free loan societies in the United States. Social Science History 13 (3): 211–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Nathalie. 2005. Britain’s Most Admired Charities: Duncan Smith warns of growing ‘hegemony’ of the big charities. Third Sector Magazine. http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/britains-admired-charities-duncan-smith-warns-growing-hegemony-big-charities/article/616144. Accessed 7 Oct 2017.

  • Thornton, Jeremy. 2006. Nonprofit fund-raising in competitive donor markets. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35 (2): 204–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, and Gabor Peli. 2007. Organizational ecology. In International encyclopedia of organization studies, ed. Stewart Clegg and James R. Bailey. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vulkan, Daniel. 2013. Britain’s Jewish Community Statistics 2012. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research. http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1324. Accessed 30 Oct 2017.

  • Wagner, Leslie. 2016. The revival of British Jewry. Jewish Political Studies Review 27 (3/4): 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, Jack. 1997. Current trends in American Jewish philanthropy. The American Jewish Year Book 97: 3–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Ruth C. 1988. Is population ecology a useful paradigm for the study of organizations? American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zald, Mayer N. 1970. Political economy: A framework for comparative analysis. In Power in organizations, 221–261. Vanderbilt University Press.

  • Zucker, Lynne G. 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology 13 (1): 443–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, Lynne G. 1989. Combining institutional theory and population ecology: No legitimacy, no history. American Sociological Review 54 (4): 542–545.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Jonathan Boyd at JPR for his encouragement. My gratitude extends to Daniel Staetsky, David Clifford, and Margaret Harris for finding the time to read earlier versions of the manuscript and offering their advice. I also thank David Clifford for his help in merging the historical financial data. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 11th Workshop on the challenges of managing the third sector organized by the European Institute of Advanced Studies in Management and hosted by Queens University, Belfast. I am grateful for the comments received from the other participants. Finally, the final version of this manuscript has benefited from the valuable comments of three anonymous reviewers and from the flawless coordination of the editor, Harriet Hartman.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR), 126 Albert St, London, NW1 7NE, UK

    Donatella Casale Mashiah

Authors
  1. Donatella Casale Mashiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donatella Casale Mashiah.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Casale Mashiah, D. Income Concentration Trends and Competition in the Charitable Sector: An Analysis of Jewish Charities in England and Wales. Cont Jewry 39, 293–339 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-019-09278-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-019-09278-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation